Looking For More

I feel like I write this every year (oh yeah, it's because I totally do), but I find the TV coverage of The Masters super annoying. The tournament has strict control over how much airtime they are willing to let the networks have, so even though the golf start at 8:30, ESPN is not allowed to start broadcasting any of it until 3 in the afternoon. What you get in the interim are very sporadic and annoying break-ins of people giving updates from the event going on right behind them while not being able to show you any of it. I know that what they they are doing in Augusta is basically trying to play hard-to-get, knowing that people always want what they can't have. They think by limiting how much coverage we see it will drive up interest, but all it really does is annoy the fans (normally the people you would want to keep happy) every single year. The reason they do this is quite simple - because they can. Much like the captain of the cheerleaders in high school they know they can be a bitch and still have people lusting over them. The Masters is like the unofficial start to spring and golf season as well as being the first major of the season, so golfers just love this event. The tournament has power and its officials are happy to use it. (Just once I would love for the Masters to be scheduled as the fourth major of the year and let's see how much coverage would be limited then.)

At least they have gotten a little better in the past few years by expanding their online presence. Now you can either go to their website directly or download an app to your tablet which will give you several viewing options before the TV coverage kicks in. For example, you can either watch as groups play through a couple of specific holes or follow one group all the way around the course (for some reason they never seem to choose the really interesting groups, though). The other alternative golf fans have is to follow enough golf writers who are at the event on Twitter to keep them up-to-date on what is going on there. It is not the best option, but it is better than nothing. Still, this creates a problem for people like me whose computers are full of large files and who don't have a ton of virtual memory to spare. After streaming video for 10 minutes my computer slows down immensely and I'm left watching halted images where the people are moving in slow motion even though the audio remains at normal speed. The result is I hear the crowd applaud a full 5 seconds before the putt drops or the video will skip ahead to catch up with real time and I won't see the putt at all. And that's if I can watch long enough to not have the site crash on me. Now, I've had a little more luck with my tablet this year, but it is still not great. It streams better than my computer, but it doesn't change the fact the screen is rather small. Do you know how stupid you feel when you are watching something on a 10-inch screen while you are in a room with a 52-inch television?

Reporters who can't think of a better story for that night are always filing reports about how medical professionals are worried that people are getting too attached to their mobile devices and tablets. Well, today was a perfect reminder that it doesn't matter how much new technology we get, TVs will always be the king of attention-hoggers. Personally, I have never understood the fascination with watching TV or movies on your smartphone. If I want to watch TV I have a TV for that. I don't much see the need to watch the same thing except on a much smaller surface. It's the same confusion I have about people who would rather take a train than fly. Why? We've invented a better experience. No need to keep using the old method when the upgrade is so readily available. TV screens are much bigger, the picture quality is awesome and, as an added bonus, you don't have to carry the thing around with you at all times - you can put it in one place and have your hands free to do something else. So why on Earth would you purposely watch something on a smaller screen if you didn't have to? Checking Twitter it was pretty easy to see that I am not alone in my feelings. Many people were expressing frustration with the coverage online and could not wait for the network feed to start.

The old saying is that less is more. That might be true everywhere else, but it does not apply to sports on television. My point is it doesn't matter how many alternatives golf fans are offered, the only thing which will make them truly happy is more coverage of the tournament. Also, it actually makes a lot of business sense for the tournament as well. I know the Masters only has a few commercial partners, but don't those companies want as much exposure as they can get? Their logos may be splashed all over the website, but think about the stereotypical golfer in your mind - do they seem like the kind of people who are going to be comfortable around technology? You may be reaching a younger audience with your web presence, but all the disposable income is locked away with the old folks who still use dial-up. The only way to reach them is through their TVs and that means more hours of the tournament on a big network. Now, the other day I wrote that the quickest way to make sure something doesn't happen at Augusta National is to tell the members that they have to do it, so I'm not about to stand up and demand they expand their viewing windows. Hell, you can't even try to bribe them with TV money because they already have more than they know what to do with, so it's not like a sponsor can threaten to leave unless they expanded coverage because that bluff will be called in a second. I just think Augusta National would be wise to remember that in marketing, just like in life, things are cyclical. What is in demand now could easily be a forgotten fad by tomorrow. To complete my analogy from earlier, there are plenty of fat, former cheerleaders who know just what I'm talking about. Let me put it another way - just because you can act like a bitch doesn't mean you should.